1722433 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant, a citizen of Nepal, a protection visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia on a student visa and applied for a protection visa some years later, claiming fear of harm due to his diagnosis of Hansen's disease (leprosy), his family's political affiliations with the Nepali Congress Party, and past violence from Maoists. The delegate had accepted the applicant had leprosy but found he could receive adequate treatment in Nepal, and was not satisfied about the credibility of his claims regarding fear of Maoists or risk from civil unrest.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion or membership of a particular social group, or whether he would suffer significant harm if returned to Nepal, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations under the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the court needed to assess the applicant's claims regarding the risk of harm from Maoists due to his family's political involvement and his own imputed political opinion, as well as the risk of serious harm arising from social stigma and discrimination due to his leprosy.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not a credible witness, noting significant inconsistencies between his initial application and his later statutory declaration and hearing testimony. While the applicant claimed to have been attacked by Maoists due to his father's refusal to pay donations, this claim was not raised in his initial application, which focused primarily on his medical condition. Regarding his leprosy, the Tribunal accepted that social stigma exists but found that the applicant's past experiences of being avoided by some friends and relatives did not amount to serious or significant harm. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had received support from his immediate family and a family friend, and that his condition had not resulted in manifest disability. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that adequate medical care for leprosy was available in Nepal and that the applicant was free of relapse and did not exhibit external signs of the disease. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm, either due to imputed political opinion or as a person suffering from leprosy, if returned to Nepal.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not meet the criteria for protection under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.